Monday, April 16, 2012

The Cost of Proper Gun Free Zones

At this writing, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is contemplating whether to sign HB 2729, which would mandate local governments that do not allow people to carry firearms into public buildings to meet several criteria.

Those criteria include:

• Posted signs saying guns are not allowed;

• Armed guards or police officers at entrances during all operating hours;

• Metal detectors and lockers for storing firearms.

An Arizona state legislative fiscal study found that the costs to secure buildings typically range from $5,000 to $113,800 per public entrance initially, with recurring costs of $54,400 to $108,800 per year.

And of course, this state mandate does not include any funds to help cities, counties or schools pay the cost of implementing this new law, so each local governing body faces the prospect of additional operating costs for each entrance to public buildings where firearms might not be the best idea.

Clearly the intent of this proposal is to push local governments toward acceptance of allowing firearms everywhere, based simply on the cost of creating “gun-free” public buildings.

What's your opinion? Is this a way for the governor to give the gun lobby what it wants without taking the blame for it? Or does the fact that setting up proper security in public buildings is expensive have nothing to do with the gun-rights issue?

16 comments:

GFZ have never been "gun free". Again criminals don't follow the law. All the school shootings prove that these signs only prevent law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. You want truly gun free zones then this is the cost otherwise all you are creating is "unarmed victim zones".

Since you can't prove a negative, I'm gonna take a wild guess. Gun free zones on college campuses have prevented many shootings from ever having happened. Those are the ones that are done by guys like you who are lawful gun owners with clean records and suddenly go off the deep end and shoot up the joint.

How does a gun-free zone prevent the scenario that you described? Let's say that a lawful gun owner with a clean record goes nuts. Is he going to care about a sign? Is he going to say, "The voices in my head tell me to shoot up the school, but the sign tells me to stop"?

Or could it be that we're not the ticking bombs that you think us to be? Could it be that we're sane, that we're responsible, and that we don't go nuts anywhere nearly as often as you think?

You're referring to me, I take it. What's to stop a teacher or a janitor from bringing a gun to school? You're avoiding answering that question. The mere presence of a sign telling people not to carry a weapon only works with those who follow the law.

You seem to be under the delusion that those of us who carry handguns are violent people with a thin veneer of legality spread over us. Look at the record of concealed carry license holders. Despite your attempts to smear us, you can't find evidence that even one percent of us commit crimes with our guns.

Guns do not magically turn otherwise sane people into monsters. You're going to tell me that a gun makes someone who snaps better able to cause mayhem, but that reveals your belief about human nature. That shows that you think all of us to be on the verge of snapping.

Yes, because I'm not talking about the occasional shootings like VA Tech that make big headlines, I'm talking about the DAILY shootings that so-called lawful gun owners do that cost two or three lives at a time.

Gun free campuses are free of those and they add up to much more that the VA Techs and the Columbines.

Why not acknowledge that the number is a tiny few and that these signs don't stop them, as you demonstrate by the news articles that you post? A sign stops no dangerous person, and safe people don't need those signs.

You have always taken the position and even just posted a story where the opinion is that we do not need to carry guns because we have police. This just reinforces that notion. If you are going to remove the ability for people to defend themselves, you have to provide adequate security. Simple. Why would you oppose this?

Exactly. Anyone who disarms me takes on the moral responsibility for my safety and should also be legally responsible. If I get injured or killed by a violent attack in a gun-free zone, the owner of that zone, be it a business or a government entity, ought to have to pay.

Bullshit. Your assertion is demonstrably untrue. I've put the numbers up, on this blog, not long ago. Millions of students, teachers, administrators and other staff are in schools K-12 and on college, university and vocational school campii. The number of them killed or wounded by gunz in any year is far lower than the number of children shot, wounded or killed in their OWN homes by a family member or playmate using a readily available, often loaded handgun.

When you and your gunzloonzpalz like Greg Camp stop telling blatant lies in order to push your agenda then perhaps you get some respect for arguing in good faith. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

And yet, we see reports here and elsewhere about people who take guns into gun-free zones. How can that be? You are correct to say that school shootings are rare. I'd love to see the numbers on the subject, but I suspect that educated people tend to commit fewer violent crimes than other groups in our society. But a gun-free zone isn't a magic shield, and many campuses are wide open.

Democommie, where's the lie in what I just wrote? Again, I'll leave and never return if you can prove that I have lied--made a statement that I knew to be false.

Yes, signs do prevent the law-abiding from carrying guns in gun free zones, including those who have problems with drugs, alcohol and rage, including those who can't handle being fired from their jobs or from being turned down by a girlfriend.

A drug abuser isn't a lawful gun owner, and an intent to kill isn't a lawful purpose. How does a sign prevent someone from committing multiple murders in a "gun-free zone"? How does that work?

Do you imagine that many of us who carry guns are just hanging on the edge of a breakdown, but are still trying to be legal? That's the only way that your claim can make any sense. The evidence doesn't support that. What it comes down to is that these signs make you feel good without any justification for that good feeling.